Google| Subject | Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/21/2014 02:08 (04/21/2014 02:08) |
| Message-ID | <slrnll8oh1.sun.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (10h & 13m) > Sandman |
In article <a4i8l958eihnqic101c8krlpblejjo3una@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
I didn't repeat it, I explained it further. Statistics is the art of analyzing data, data requires more than one data point. You can't analyze the number "24" in any way, so you can't create statistics out of that data.Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
Please explain why.
Because "a single data point" isn't statistics. You have to have more than one data point for it to be statistics, and then one single data point of those many data points become important.
Just repeating your claim but in different words doesn't do anything to prove it.
My paragraph went on with an analogy that explained this further, but you cut in with the above statement in the middle of it, pretending that the other part didn't exist:
Sandman
I have four doors in my office. That's not statistics. If I were to compare it to the number of doors in other offices, I would have more data points and voila - statistics.statistic noun a fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical datastatistics pl.noun [ treated as sing. ] the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, esp. for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.
What you "think" is of no consequence to me, Eric. You are free to think whatever foolish things you want.Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
Simple denial without explanation. I don't think you know much about statistics.
Ironic. As I've said before, I reply with "Incorrect" when you repeat an incorrect statement to which I have already given an explanation before.
I still think you don't know much about statistics.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
